In reply to Dave Garnett:
> I empathise more than slightly with Jon on this but nevertheless I agree with the lawyers (and have argued this previously).
> It could be argued this way. The massive difference between a dodgy bit of fixed gear on a trad route (or even a bit of old string vest dangling over a roof on an aid route for those old enough to climbed Revelations as God intended) and a sport route is that people clipping bolts have a reasonable expectation that they are safe and no way of testing this for themselves. A generation or two of indoor climbers have completely (quite reasonably) accepted this in the artificial indoor (and fee paying) environment and now adopt the same attitude outdoors.
> What if, equipping a sport route, at least in a recognised sport climbing venue, carries with it an ongoing duty to inspect and maintain it to a safe standard? That would mean some sort of organisation adopting this responsibility and a landowner with a sport crag on his land might be wise to be thinking about making access conditional on getting an undertaking to this effect and making it unambiguously clear that by allowing access, not only was he was not responsible in the event of an accident resulting from gear failure but identifying who was. This is the inevitable consequence of converting a landscape feature into an venue engineered for a particular activity.
> I'm aware that this won't be a popular view but look at this way.
> a) A bolt is placed for the express purpose of safely arresting a fall. A climber has a reasonable expectation that it will fulfil this function.
> b) At some point in the future, unless it is maintained or replaced, it will become dangerous and likely to fail.
> c) This is entirely foreseeable.
> d) If someone is injured or killed, whatever their views on responsibility and the acceptance of risk, either they will have no insurance and their dependants may have no option but to sue, or they will be insured and the insurance company will, as standard practice, sue in order to mitigate their losses.
It should be noted that JCM is arguing what the law MIGHT decide in the future, until now the law in a number of countries has decided that there is no legal responsibility for equippers of routes, for example the state prosecuter in Bavaria was of the opinion there was no case to answer in the infamous Sigi bolt affair which caused the death of a climber. The OP asked what are the "legal responsibilities/liabilities" and until a judgement is made otherwise then there are none.
Your point about a newer generation of climbers and their expectations is a good one and highly relevant to those of us actively bolting new routes. Due to the variabilities and the traditions of outdoor climbing I don´ t know any equipper who, if the expectation of climbers is a level of safety (and convenience) equal to indoor climbing walls would continue to develop cliffs. Additionally if the expectation is that the original equipper by placing a bolt is somehow taking on a duty to maintain or guarantee safety for other users with the consequences that they could face legal action for failing to do so then all the equippers I know would immediately remove their bolts.
Whether the climbing community want to change "outdoors" to " like indoors with weather" or keep sport climbing as a half-way house between adventure climbing and climbing walls has not yet been decided.
The desire that a minimum standard should be that installers have attended a training course is understandable but fails to appreciate a number of factors.
Firstly, a large number of the accidents that have occured have involved persons who had received training, in fact most of the incidents I am aware of which is inevitable since they are clearly more actively bolting but never the less an indication that attending a training course is not the solution.
Secondly, who provides the training? Currently anyone can organise and give training courses no matter their competence since installation of bolts for recreational climbing is not covered by any law and there are no standards for installation. If training was to become a requirement then the the logical course to follow would be that of the rope access industry where European law specifies who can train installers, that is the manufacturer or their appointed agents. Not the BMC or anyone else.
As James Mann has pointed out, if the climbing community want these levels of security then they will have to establish a fund-raising system to cover the considerable extra costs which will be involved.